[Image has text from the linked article which reads:
CALL-OUT CULTURE AS RITUAL DISPOSABILITY
Feminist/queer spaces are more willing to criticize people than abusive systems because they want to reserve the right to use those systems for their own purposes. At least attacking people can be politically viable, especially in a token system where you benefit directly by their absence, or where your status as a good feminist is dependent on constantly rooting out evil.
When the bounty system calls for the ears of evil people, well, most people have a fucking ear.
When I used to curate games, I was approached by people in that abusive community who pressured me not to cover a game by a trans woman. Their reasoning was blatant jealousy, disguised under the thin, nauseating film of pretext that covers nearly everything people say about trans people.
When I rejected their reasoning and covered the game, the targeting reticule of disposability turned toward me. What can we learn from this? Besides “lofty processes in queer/feminist spaces are nearly always about some embarrassingly petty shit,” it’s about the ritual nature of disposability, which has nothing to do with “deserving” it. Disposability has to happen on a regular basis, like forest fires keeping nature in balance.
So when people write all those apologist articles about call-out culture and other instruments of violence in feminism, I don’t think they understand that the people who most deserve those things can usually shrug off the effects, and the normalization of that violence inevitably trickles down and affects the weak. It is predictable as water. Criminal justice applies punishment under the conceit of blind justice, but we see the results: Prisons are flooded with the most vulnerable, and the rich can buy their way out of any problem. In activist communities, these processes follow a similar pragmatism.
Punishment is not something that happens to bad people. It happens to those who cannot stop it from happening. It is laundered pain, not a balancing of scales.”]
In Labor Market Concentration, a new working paper from economists at U Penn, U Navarra and the Roosevelt Institute, researchers analyze a large US government data-set to determine how many workers live in markets where there is effective only one or two employers, a situation called “monoposony” (when a single buyer has a monopoly).
The researchers find that the majority of US workers live in these markets, where there is no competition for their labor; in these markets, wages are artificially suppressed because employers do not have to bid against each other for the same workers.
This is an important data-point in the ongoing debate about anti-trust and competition in capitalist economies. When the Chicago School economists gutted anti-trust enforcement in the USA, they did so on the basis that the only reason for governments to interfere in markets was when monopolists used their power to raise prices – but not when they colluded to sabotage new market entrants or suppress new products or services, and certainly not to prevent them from thwarting workers who wanted to get raises. The theory was that labor markets are “naturally competitive” and do not warrant consideration by regulators.
This is, in part, what the minimum wage is for. This is what OSHA is for. This is what the social safety net is for.
They are the counterbalancing force against issues and circumstances like this, where the basic theoretical dynamics of capitalism don’t work, either because they damage they would inflict on a society are too great or because the necessary prerequisites for capitalism to operate don’t exist.
If you live in an area where are no jobs, where you have no real competition among employers for labor, then you have no choice but to take the job offered, regardless of the health risks, the low pay, They are what keep people from having no other choice but to work for next-to-no pay in dangerous places with no benefits, because each individual needs a job but jobs don’t need each individual.
If a stranger misgenders you, please please please do not ever utter the phrase, “I’m a man.” It sounds very unnatural and immediately sounds overly defensive.
My advice? Just look at the person like they’re an idiot and, in the deepest voice possible, say, “Uh. Alright, then.”
Just act as though they made a huge and obvious mistake, and don’t get flustered. If you’re comfortable with it, handle the situation with humor and say something like, “Man, I know I’ve got a babyface, but I didn’t think it was that bad.”
People are saying that you should be unapologetic but the keyword here is “stranger”. You could be in danger if the person is transphobic, and you have no way of knowing their stance if you don’t know the person. So writing it off casually ensures the most low risk way of making your gender known.
Posting this again because of the new information added on.
list of go-tos for getting misgendered at work (I’ve never had a customer not apologize, or not believe me):
1. “Oh, uh, I’m a guy” with a slight chuckle
2. “I’m a guy, by the way” a few sentences after the mistake
3. just ignore it – if someone calls out “miss” or “ma’am” to get your attention, just ignore it and act like you’re not used to hearing it at all (if they call out again, act confused and then go to 1 or 2)
One of my cis best friends works at a major retailer and gets misgendered all the time. He’s got facial hair and most other go-to male sex characteristics. He gets called ma’am by other dudes. People literally just don’t pay attention at all; don’t freak out when they slip up, or it looks out of place.
so this year for Halloween simply went as my self, lol jk, but honestly i was the supreme as always so just your eveyday male witch and i think it turned out pretty well.
instagram @beingadp
Ooh and if anyone is located in San Diego and wants to do a coven shoot with me just DM me on here or instagram, thanks guys.
Trevor-Roper’s discomforted readers discovered that their romantic image of brawny Scottish Highlanders stalking o’er the braes in kilts and clan tartans was in fact a marketing triumph — and not even by a Scot. A Quaker industrialist had invented the kilt and meant to sell it. Still, the product didn’t move until Sir Walter Scott’s Romantic generation (looking for a Noble Savage closer to home than Rousseau’s South Seas) romanticized the Highlander and bought kilts, clan tartans and all: an “invented tradition.”
when you have a white supremacist president, he views haiti in the classic manner white supremacists do therefore it’s based on tons of misinformation and straight up lies.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.